dulwichdreadlocks

The Time Out is full of real weirdos.

I've been on dates with approximately three men from dating sites in the past. All three of them masqueraded as normal men but belonged in psychiatric wards and would have been admitted had a psychiatrist come across them.

HonaloochieB Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > dulwichdreadlocks Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Mikecg Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I know of one person who was imprisoned for > > > spitting at a tram driver, > > > > No wonder our prisons are overcrowded. It is > > absolutely ridiculous to put somebody in prison > > for spitting. A fine or community service, > > perhaps (even that is extreme) but a prison > > sentence is just ridiculous. > > Why is it extreme? > I like to think I live in a society where there is > a sanction for someone who thinks it's OK to gob > in my face. > If a person is scummy and ill-mannered enough to > do it then they should suffer a consequence. > Though not overly macho, my inclination would be a > left hand throat-grip and a right hand nose-punch > for anyone degenerate enough to insult me with > their bodily fluids. while spitting is gross and ill-mannered the sentence needs to fit the crime. Prison is meant to the sentence used when the offence is so very serious that no other form of sentence is harsh enough to fit the crime. Someone gobbing at you doesn't fall into that category. It's a waste of public funds to place such a person in jail. They are hardly a danger to society A caution or a fine is more than enough.

Shouldn't this 'thread' be conducted by Private Message?

ibilly99 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No pk - but I will repeat the main point of my > previous thread - why didn't he let the court > decide whether he was guilty or not - why pay him > off and deny the right and proper forum to decide > on his guilt or innocence. > > What would be more honest reply from those who try > and defend him is I don?t care whether he is a > paedophile or not I love his music, he was part of > my history and this will be the last chance I?ll > ever get to see him and I have a ticket so back > off and stop spoiling my fantasy. ? > > Warning contains strong language .. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er1Pm37yX08&feature > =related If I was innocent and facing a potentially gruesome court case, I'd pay to make it all go away if I had the means to do so. Just being innocent doesn't necessarily mean that a jury will find you innocent at the end of the day. I wouldn't want to rely on the decision of 12 random individuals - especially not when their minds may have poisoned against me by media coverage.

Mikecg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I know of one person who was imprisoned for > spitting at a tram driver, No wonder our prisons are overcrowded. It is absolutely ridiculous to put somebody in prison for spitting. A fine or community service, perhaps (even that is extreme) but a prison sentence is just ridiculous.

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Apart from the fact that there is enough suspicion > to brand him a paedophile and people shouldn?t be > listening to his music let alone supporting him by > forking out money to do so he is also just a @#$%& > pop singer prancing about singing someone else?s > songs. Comparing him to the Rolling Stones is like > comparing a professionally prepared meal (not the > world?s best or most original mind as the stones > aren?t that good) to a bowl of badly set Angel > Delight. this post is wrong on so many levels.

I now have the iPhone and I'm in love with it. I might even have its child.

weird...

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd say that iPod touch and iPhone seems like > technological tautology. > Keep your touch and get something small and light > would be my advice. > > They are funky though. They are indeed nice looking. I need to have email access all the time which tends to rule out something small and light.

LRon Hubble Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > dulwichdreadlocks > > What are you asking? i clearly explained why as > you say "so many people are up in arms about it". > Are you now asking me why it doesn't work? this is > not just my view its the view of the entire > scientific community (im not exaggerating). pls > look back through the thread, at my posts for > links . This is really basic stuff ask your G.P. > for his honest medical opinion. > > or just google.... "why homeopathy does not work" > don't take my word for it. > > LRon So what is the big deal? Do you lose money or feel pain each time somebody chooses to ignore what the scientists say and uses homeopathic remedies? I just don't understand why you seem so wound up about it.

LRon, I'm sure you've got issues of your own in your own life and so on. Perhaps you could entertain the possibility of letting grown adults decide for themselves if they want to spend their money on homeopathy or not.

LRon Hubble Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > dulwichdreadlocks > > > It is confusing and shocking to me that so many > people > > are so up in arms about homeopathy. IF they > don't like > > homeopathy they are free not to use it. > > > > > > I already explained this, its about educating > people who don't know that Homeopathy is pure > placebo. If you already take them and you don't > have the depth of character to contemplate that > you might be wrong and do some research the > subject... then fine carry on taking them...put > them in whatever hole you like, they have the same > effect or why not give the money you are going to > spend on it to charity? see if that also makes you > feel better. > > i am honestly shocked that people can be so fooled > into taking it, Homeopathy mocks you... it is a > sugar pill.... its water there are no active > ingredients. > > LRon You have not explained to me where you get this idea from. It is presumably just your opinion.

I've ordered an Iphone (but I can always send it back) and now I am wondering if I need it. I already have a Blackberry Bold and an Ipod Touch. Will an Iphone bring me anything those two gadgets don't already provide? Anyone here have an Iphone and love it, or hate it?

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > from the cwasu website - "independent > research....from a feminist perspective" > > How is that different from independent research > from an independent perspective? > > "My bad: men don't really rape. Or when they do, > it's only very occasionally and only when the > woman is wearing a mini skirt." > > No, they do. And sometimes that gets reported to > the police, and sometimes they get charged, and > sometimes they get convicted. And there are hard, > undisputable numbers for each of those. And there > are also numbers for women who say in surveys that > they have been raped, or sexually assaulted, which > may or may not be reliable depending on the > methodology. But all of those numbers are less > than 1 in 10. So the NSPCC are making their stats up too?

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So all your stats are essentially based on one > survey/one group of connected surveys? - not v. > compelling. My bad: men don't really rape. Or when they do, it's only very occasionally and only when the woman is wearing a mini skirt.:X

Obviously this thread is a joke. I don't understand why you are considering sending ANY of your kids to public school since clearly it's outside of your socio-economic capabilities. I went to public school but then so did my sister and brothers as well as my mother and father and grandparents in their day. I think it would have been extremely weird if just one of us had been singled out to attend public school while the others went to state school. Why not invest your money in a plasma TV and get all of your kids into reasonable comprehensives?

UK DataFinding Source Method 59% of young women and 27% of young men have experienced at least one sexually intrusive* incident before the age of 18 Kelly, Regan and Burton, 1991 Survey of 1,244 young people attending Further Education colleges, Britain 21% of young women and 7% of young men have experienced sexual abuse involving physical contact before the age of 18 Kelly, Regan and Burton, 1991 Survey (as above) Women are between 2 and 3 times more likely to experience sexual abuse than men Kelly, Regan and Burton, 1991 Survey (as above) 14% of abusers were close relatives, 68% were more distant relatives and other previously known persons, 18% were strangers Kelly, Regan and Burton, 1991 Survey (as above) 85% of peer abusers were male and 95% of adult abusers were male Kelly, Regan and Burton, 1991 Survey (as above) 21% of girls and 11% of boys have experienced child sexual abuse** Cawson, Wattam, Brooker and Kelly, 2000 (NSPCC) National representative study of 2,869 young people aged 18-24 years 16% of girls aged 12 or under were sexually abused Cawson et.ac. 2000 NSPCC study The majority of assaults on girls are committed by known males Kelly et.al., 1991

http://www.cwasu.org/page_display.asp?pageid=STATS&pagekey=35&itemkey=37

antijen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pharmaceuticals fund most research and trials and > not much room for more natural and simplistic > remedies, especially if we could grow them in our > gardens.I think its about what you believe in > though it seriously puzzles me how many people > seem to have faith in the pharmy comps, > > > Yes I agree with you. It is confusing and shocking to me that so many people are so up in arms about homeopathy. IF they don't like homeopathy they are free not to use it. > http://www.natural-health-information-centre.com/c > odex-alimentarius.html

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > You'd have to assume that this high-incidence > demographic group is itself segmented, and that > there may well be particular clusters in it that > are culturally and socially accustomed to violent > conflict resolution and the degradation of women. > That could account for DD's convictions. > ????

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's completely absurd - not to mention insulting > - to suggest that within the midst of a group of > friends who you haven't even met, that there's > guaranteed to be a swathe of abused women, > silently carrying on. Absolute bollocks. It may be unpleasant, but absurd or untrue: no.

LegalEagle-ish Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't want to upset anyone here, but do the > people who say they don't know many women who > might fit into the one in ten statistic think it > might be possible that they are not the kind of > people women they know who have been through these > things would want to confide in? > > I am serious when I say that most of the women I > know well have at some time in their life been > attacked, sexually assaulted or raped by men they > were either dating, living with or knew in some > other capacity. > > I'm really shocked that some of you do not know > how common this is. > > But I also know men who have been stabbed or > beaten by a gang of guys - not as many as the > women I know who were victims, but quite a few > still. It may be a class thing, because most of > the people I know well are not middle class, so > have had a rougher experience of life anyway. It IS common in any class. I think there are some people heavily in denial here.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > I guess this is my issue - is rape 'common', and > is it much more common than people think? At least half the women I know have been raped (and obviously not all women who've been raped are even going to admit it). Is that common enough for ya?

LRon Hubble Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi dulwichdreadlocks, > > dulwichdreadlocks Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > If one person thinks homeopathy (and all other > > alternative medicine) is a sham and waste of > > money, and another person swears by homeopathy > and > > has found great relief since using it: why is > the > > person who thinks it is a sham so desperate to > > stop the person who believes in it believing in > > it? > > > > Thats drawing a bit of a false dichotomy of the > subject. On the one hand you have people who know > Homeopathy offers no effective treatment, on the > other hand you have people who believe it works. > In the middle there are people who are unaware > there is even any issue about homeopathic > treatment and therefore don't question it. > > All these people vote..... and as jeremy points > out when the public's money is spend on treatments > that are effectively water.....thats a problem. As > that money may well have been directed away from a > worth while cause. > > The more who know just how credulous homeopathy > assumes people are the better and the more it > shall be sidelined for worthwhile treatments. > > its not desperation its concern. > > LRon So we have 100% confirmation that Homeopathy NEVER works for anybody? That is news to me and clearly news to the NHS as well.